evidence based policing literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Evidence-Based Policing Is Here to Stay: Innovative Research, Meaningful Practice, and Global Reach

Eric l. piza.

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115 USA

Brandon C. Welsh

Research question.

In the context of important advances as well as global reach, what more is needed for evidence-based policing to bridge the divide between academic research and police practice?

We draw on 18 case studies reported in The Globalization of Evidence-Based Policing: Innovations in Bridging the Research-Practice Divide (Piza and Welsh, 2022). These accounts of innovations provide a range of qualitative evidence on the integration of scientific research in contemporary policing.

The case studies describe some plausible causal links in four key processes: (a) transferring scientific knowledge to the practice community, (b) empowering officers to conduct police-led science, (c) aligning the work of researchers and practitioners, and (d) incorporating evidence-based policing in daily police functions.

Conclusions

While there is much work to do to achieve population-level impacts, many innovative efforts at bridging the research-practice divide in policing are becoming embedded enough to make that happen.

Introduction

The title of this article is neither hyperbole nor wishful thinking on our part. After almost three decades of thinking, writing, research, and practice, the idea of EBP is very much a reality. For sure, there is much work to do: overcoming institutional resistance, bridging the research-practice divide, and furnishing police leaders and practitioners with the tools necessary to adopt an evidence-based approach in their day-to-day operations. In all these tasks, the key challenge, as Millenson ( 2021 ) astutely observes, remains whether EBP can make a real, lasting difference for citizens as well as the police institution.

We think EBP is on the road to making such a difference. It is certainly not happening at the pace that many would like, and there have been setbacks and failures along the way (see Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Millenson, 2021 ). Like other disciplines or professions purporting to embrace the evidence-based paradigm, failure is to be expected. Just as accepting the principle that failure is at the core of advancing science (Firestein, 2016 ), it is what is done with these failures that is crucial to advancement of knowledge. As a pioneering historian of evidence-based medicine, Millenson ( 2021 ) is still not convinced that either medical doctors or police officers have sufficiently embraced this view of failure as indispensable to success: to “learn from our errors and misadventures” (p. 148). At least in some circumstances, however, we think otherwise. The present article profiles some innovations in helping to make this happen.

Demonstrating that EBP is making a difference for citizens and law enforcement is going to take some time, inasmuch as the goal is to transform policing into a “totally evidenced” profession (Sherman, 2015 ) to achieve “population-level” impacts (Dodge, 2020 ) across a majority of police agencies or officers. Part of getting there involves overcoming the divide that exists between academic research and police practice (or between scholars and police practitioners). That divide is the main focus of the article. Aiding this effort is an emerging globalization or global reach of EBP. Again, there is work to do on this front, especially in countries in transition and developing countries. The good news is that no longer is the real-world practice of EBP limited to a handful of developed countries.

The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence for that claim from the main findings of a new book on the subject: The Globalization of Evidence-Based Policing: Innovations in Bridging the Research-Practice Divide (Piza and Welsh, 2022 ). The article is organized around four themes that are central to advancing EBP: (a) transferring scientific knowledge to the practice community, (b) empowering officers to conduct police-led science, (c) aligning the work of researchers and practitioners, and (d) incorporating EBP in daily police functions. The article ends with some concluding remarks and directions for the future.

Transferring Scientific Knowledge to the Practice Community

Evidence-based policing is an active process requiring reciprocity between research and practice for maximum benefits to be achieved (Huey & Mitchell, 2019 ). The generation of scientific knowledge by academic researchers must be consulted by police practitioners in order for EBP to realize its full potential. Unfortunately, EBP remains a foreign concept to millions of police officers and leaders around the world (Sherman, 2015 ). While higher-ranking officers exhibit more knowledge of EBP than lower-ranking officers, they tend to define it in a way that is different from the intended meaning (Telep & Bottema, 2020 ).

Key to navigating such impediments is the design of research projects that stand to directly benefit police agencies. This process could be further assisted by involving police practitioners directly in the interpretation of findings and discussion of their implications for policy and practice. In our book, Neyroud ( 2022 ) connects such active research processes to Rogers’ ( 2003 ) diffusion of innovation theory, by which the acquisition of knowledge leads an institution to be persuaded to adopt a given innovation. Neyroud demonstrates this process through case studies on police-led diversion models, the global implementation of community policing, and the use of EBP to support police reform in India. Neyroud was personally involved in each case as both a police professional and academic, providing insight into the institutional processes driving the diffusion of policing innovations. Key across his case studies is the increased engagement of police personnel with research evidence, largely made possible by such developments as the investment in and dissemination of systematic reviews, increased willingness on the part of local governments to fund primary research, and technical assistance in program implementation offered by international bodies like the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.

A key impediment to the wide-scale adoption of EBP pertains to lack of training opportunities in police departments. Despite education levels of police leaders substantially increasing since the 1970s, less progress has been made in the application of scientific knowledge to practice (Sherman, 2013 ). Furthermore, education and training have typically focused on police leaders rather than mid-managers who directly oversee daily operations (Ratcliffe, 2019 ). This creates a situation where police have access to evidence on “what works,” but are given little capacity to implement such strategies in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of success (Johnson et al., 2015 ).

Ratcliffe’s ( 2022 ) evidence discusses the development and delivery of an EBP training program for mid-level command staff. As argued by Ratcliffe, while police agencies often view tactical operations as hard skills requiring constant training, setting crime reduction strategy and policy is often considered a skill one can learn “on the job.” Ratcliffe’s police commander crime reduction course enhances the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model popularized by problem-oriented policing through specific practices and checklists to introduce more structured working practices into command work function. Building on SARA, the PANDA model has been developed: Problem scan, Analyze problem, Nominate strategy, Deploy strategy, and Assess outcomes. PANDA retains aspects of SARA while adding more specificity to the articulation and deployment of a response. Each stage of the PANDA model has an accompanying checklist to foster a structured approach to decision-making to enhance the existing skillset of police leaders.

La Vigne’s ( 2022 ) evidence provides a retrospective accounting of efforts to translate research findings for lay audiences to inform policing policy and practice. Her interviews with American policymakers and criminal justice influencers show that in the latter half of the twentieth century, criminology had a tenuous (at best) tie to policy relevance and media engagement. The interviews demonstrate how policing’s advancement towards more policy relevance and media impact developed within a complex ecosystem of actors in the criminal justice and policing space. That ecosystem, in the USA, consists of academic researchers and research centers within universities; scholars housed in non-academic research institutes; the academy, as represented primarily by the two most prominent criminology associations; the federal government; and philanthropy.

Dissemination represents a key aspect of police research translation (Lum & Koper, 2017 ). The College of Policing (UK), founded in 2012, is one example, which communicates research evidence through its What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR). Sidebottom and Tilley ( 2022 ) discuss the work of the WWCCR and its Crime Reduction Toolkit ( https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit ), which is used as its primary research translation tool—measuring the quality of systematic reviews of crime and justice interventions. For example, the authors discuss how well the programmatic needs of policymakers are addressed by systematic reviews on a range of crime prevention approaches (e.g., alley gating, CCTV, hot spots policing, focused deterrence), diversion (e.g., drug substitutes, mentoring), and reoffending programs (e.g., domestic abuse sanctions, electronic tagging). The authors report that most systematic reviews provide rich data on program effects, but provide less information on monetary costs and benefits, mechanisms and moderators, and implementation challenges.

Empowering Officers to Conduct Police-Led Science

Piza et al. ( 2021 ) argue that the institutionalization of evidence-based policing requires understanding how scientific knowledge is produced. Knowledge internalization, where academics draw from generalizable knowledge to inform the narrower, specific actions of practitioners (Nonaka, 1994 ), has been the predominant model in policing since the professional era starting in the mid-1900s (Sherman, 2011 : 531). There are a number of inherent limitations in such an approach, including the typically slow-moving process of research not fitting an expedited timeline needed to inform policy and practice, and academic researchers lacking the skill to help with specific problems facing practitioners. For such reasons, Sherman ( 2011 ) proposes a move towards a model of police-led science, which puts police officers at the forefront of generating evidence, with agencies empowering their officers to develop and test research questions.

Four chapters in Piza and Welsh ( 2022 ) focus on efforts to foster police-led science. Smith ( 2022 ), for example, recounts his lived experience of higher education as a mechanism for securing greater influence and autonomy as a senior police officer of the Metropolitan Police Service of London. Smith concludes that many problems of the police profession are not due to a lack of credible scientific evidence, but rather to an organizational behavior that is unable to readily apply such evidence in practice. Smith demonstrates how police reform requires leaders highly skilled in change management who can develop critical insights on how their organization functions—and simultaneously secure new knowledge from academic partners who seek to shape policing practice. Smith argues that such a context transforms EBP from something that is “done to the police service” by those on the outside looking in, to something driven by the police service itself.

The empowerment necessary to support police-led science can also be fostered by professional societies, two of which are profiled in the book. Prince et al. ( 2022 ) recount the formation of the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing (ASEBP) and its organizational activities. Huey and Ferguson ( 2022 ) do likewise for the Canadian Society of Evidence-Based Policing (Can-SEBP). Both organizations were developed out of unique needs in the two countries, and they now form part of a much larger global network of EBP societies.

Prince et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate the evolution of ASEBP as a series of “starts and stops” that allowed the organization to organically find its purpose. Over its first 6 years, ASEBP has grown from a group of 10 to over 350 members, offering an annual research conference that attracts attendees from around the world and from which applied research projects often emerge. Huey and Ferguson ( 2022 ) discuss how Can-SEBP resulted from a distinct need of the Canadian government to better foster evidence-based approaches to public safety, with the objective of rebuilding Canada’s capacity for applied policing research.

Perhaps the most promising direction for developing police-led science is by enabling police officers to directly generate their own scientific research evidence through designing and implementing field experiments. Doing so requires a departure from standard procedure, as policing primarily relies on police academies to provide initial and ongoing training for officers in legal frameworks guiding the policing profession and the proper use of law enforcement tactics (Ratcliffe, 2022 ). Mazerolle et al. ( 2022 ), however, describe supplemental EBP workshops developed and offered by the University of Queensland for the purpose of empowering police to drive for themselves the reform agenda around EBP.

These EBP workshops are intentionally designed to promote meaningful academic-practitioner partnerships for research production. The police participants come to a workshop with a specific problem facing their agency and draw upon their operational knowledge and experience to design an innovative response. The academic facilitator supplies research methodology to develop the idea and generate evidence of effectiveness. Police then use this information to lead field experiments. The field experiments emerging from the EBP workshops have explored a range of contemporary policing issues, including the capacity of third-party policing to disrupt the sale of illicit drugs from hotel rooms, the effect of procedural justice principles on routine encounters with citizens, and the long-term effect of diversion on repeat offending (see also Cowan et al., 2019 ).

Aligning the Work of Researchers and Practitioners

Researcher-practitioner partnerships can provide an environment that fosters evidence-based policing, especially when both parties contribute to problem identification, strategy development, and strategy implementation (Mock, 2010 ). A partnership environment helps both sides to navigate the competing interests and incentive structures of academia and policing. Todak et al. ( 2022 ), for example, draw upon their experiences with the inaugural cohort of the National Institute of Justice’s Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) Academics program. This program has contributed to the development of many productive research collaborations between practitioners and academics, including the design, deployment, and evaluation of the effect of foot patrols in Dayton, Ohio (Haberman & Stiver, 2019 ).

Action-research partnerships can be improved through the involvement of embedded criminologists who take an active role in the day-to-day routine of police agencies. The presence of an in-house academic can provide police agencies with uninhibited access to rigorously trained, scientifically objective scholars in support of agency operations. The integration of embedded criminologists in policing follows the successful application of the model in corrections (Petersilia, 2008 ), and has thus far involved academics working in close concert with command-staff police personnel. Gerell ( 2022 ) provides an account of his work with the intelligence unit of Sweden’s National Police, which expanded the embedded criminologist model into the field of crime analysis.

The potential of embedded criminologists and police “pracademics” to accelerate these partnerships is taken up by Douglas and Braga ( 2022 ) who describe their role in promoting the adoption of EBP within police agencies. In the past, academic partnerships with police departments have largely been project-based enterprises that rarely continued beyond the project’s end (Rojek et al., 2012 ). Embedded criminologists help create a more lasting effect by their continuing presence, while pracademics — police officers who have received academic training in research and evaluation — can act as knowledge “brokers” in their organizations, who can align perspectives across multiple constituencies (Posner, 2009 : 16). These capacities may make pracademics the most likely mechanism for successfully integrating the “craft” of police work and the “hard science” of empirical research (Willis & Mastrofski, 2018 ).

Gimenez-Santana et al. ( 2022 ) present their work with a Newark public safety initiative developed at the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice. The project uses a model of data-informed community engagement (DICE) to assist a working group of community partner organizations in identifying crime problems and developing evidence-based solutions. DICE involves the public presentation and discussions of data analysis findings at community meetings attended by all stakeholder agencies. Risk-Terrain Modeling (RTM) for spatial analysis of crime is at the heart of DICE by identifying the risks that come from the physical environment’s crime attractors and generators (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995 ), and models how they co-locate to create unique behavior settings for crime.

Piza et al. ( 2022 ) present a proposal for police technology research to be guided by Community Technology Oversight Boards (CTOBs), to better inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of police technology interventions, emphasizing active collaboration and continuous feedback. The authors propose CTOBs following a critical assessment of Piza’s experience in analyzing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in Newark, New Jersey (see, e.g., Piza et al., 2014 , 2015 ). The purpose of CTOBs is to formalize community-focused partnerships to inform police surveillance technologies. They should comprise practitioners, researchers, and community stakeholders to encourage the adoption of sound science and efficient, effective, and equitable technology interventions. For best results, these stakeholders would work collaboratively to identify and analyze problems, consider and select specific technology for deployment, conduct in-depth assessments to understand the potential community impact, and conduct rigorous process and outcome evaluations to determine whether technology interventions should be adjusted. While this model can be readily applied to contemporary police technologies, such as CCTV, it holds particular promise for emerging surveillance technologies such as facial recognition and aerial drones. Given the rapidly expanding popularity of these tools, as well as their potentially enhanced intrusiveness and the general controversy surrounding their use, a CTOB provides a platform for consultation and negotiation.

Incorporating Evidence-Based Policing in Daily Police Functions

A wide range of innovative approaches have been carried out in recent years as part of a growing effort to embed evidence-based policing principles in daily police functions. Our book (Piza and Welsh, 2022 ) profiles five such approaches. In the early 2010s, Lum et al. ( 2011 ) launched an innovative and user-friendly tool known as the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix. Viewed at the time as the “next phase of evidence-based policing,” the Matrix was designed to aid police agencies in using scientific evidence in a strategic manner. It did so by “developing generalizations or principles on the nature of effective police strategies and translating the field of police evaluation research into digestible forms that can be used to alter police tactics, strategies, accountability systems, and training” (Lum et al., 2011 : 3). The first test of the Matrix reaffirmed some of the scientific evidence on police effectiveness in reducing crime. It continues to serve as a key resource for updating the evidence base in a timely manner and tailoring the evidence to the needs of police agencies.

In the next phase of the Matrix, known as the Matrix Demonstration Projects (MDP), Lum and Koper ( 2022 ) illustrate how the MDP facilitates three activities that are essential to achieving EBP: translation, receptivity, and institutionalization. These core activities come with the added benefit of contributing to the development of high-quality research evidence. The authors discuss in detail the creation of tools to support the application of EBP in the field (e.g., the Evidence-Based Policing Playbook) and the communication of EBP principles to police management and leadership.

Another innovative approach is the CompStat360 platform, which harnesses the benefits of both the traditional CompStat model and community policing perspectives. Neusteter and Magnus ( 2022 ) describe how CompStat360 was piloted and developed through a practitioner-researcher partnership in Tucson, Arizona. The platform consists of planned connections or feedback loops among three overlapping dimensions: (a) prevention, intervention, and clearance of crimes; (b) maximization of organizational effectiveness; and (c) integration of community support and involvement. Key lessons from CompsStat360 include these:

• not all projects required crime analysis resources or the use of a “rigid” problem-solving structure;
• the importance of targeting micro-problem areas or places (e.g., a motel generating a high volume of 911 calls); and
• police commanders going beyond “siloed” problem solving to establishing ad hoc multidisciplinary teams.

As an example of the global reach of EBP, O’Brien and Evans ( 2022 ) describe the development, early initiatives, and current scope of the New Zealand Police Service’s Evidence-Based Policing Centre (EBPC). Established in early 2019, the Centre is dedicated to institutionalizing EBP in day-to-day operations of the police service. The EBPC strategy is structured around four key functions: (a) data science; (b) performance, research, and insights; (c) delivery and improvements; and (d) implementation and evaluation. Teams assigned to each of these functions combine police practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders to carry out these functions. At the time of writing, there were more than 50 active projects in these four functions, with another 100 projects in the scoping and development phase. In recognition of the many challenges of embedding EBP in operational policing and sustaining it over time, the Centre’s efforts are guided by a number of “success criteria.” These include meeting specific targets, including making New Zealand the safest country in the world, fostering a culture of learning and innovation, and forming strong partnerships with others who aspire to similar goals.

Turning back to the USA, Green and Bates ( 2022 ) profile a state-wide initiative (in the state of New York) that relies on EBP practices to reduce urban gun violence at the local level. Facilitated by technical support, training, and assistance in data collection from the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the initiative leverages a network of crime analysis centers (as a way to bolster the analytical capacity of local police agencies), an innovative street outreach program, a tested gun violence prevention program, and efforts to improve clearance rates for non-fatal gun crimes. By embracing a more active role than most traditional state grant-awarding systems, DCJS has also been in a position to help agencies respond to changing conditions on the ground, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, and address implementation challenges.

The final innovative approach profiled in the book for embedding EBP principles in daily police functions concerns the Cambridge Police Executive Programme (CPEP). Building on a program for certifying police leaders launched at Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology in 1996 and directed by Lawrence Sherman with an EBP curriculum since 2008, the Programme offers a part-time master’s degree to mid-career police officers. Its aim is training “pracademics” in policing both to do research and lead its application. Its diverse student body enables its effort to institutionalize EBP across the world.

Two main perspectives guide this Programme’s approach to EBP: (a) EBP should serve as a “general framework for making decisions” and (b) EBP is a “strategy for organizing police activities around a holistic mission of reducing total harm from crimes” (Sherman, 2022 : 301). Undergirding these views has been the mission of getting research into practice, culminating in scores of applied research projects by the student pracademics, in collaboration with their faculty thesis advisors, and leading to scientific discoveries and changes in police practices. The Cambridge Programme shows how academic training can directly, and in short order, impact police agency operations. It also serves as a proof of concept for replication in other top-tier universities, as a way to get more pracademics in policing and help institutionalize EBP.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Our conclusion from these 18 case studies is that the evidence-based policing movement has expanded rapidly across the world. It has gained a foothold in a large number of police agencies. It has become part of the institutional landscape of policing, through international, regional, and country-level professional societies dedicated to its advancement.

At the same time, and undergirding some of the movement’s success, there has been a growing body of scientific research. From experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations (many published in this journal) to Campbell Collaboration reviews of the highest quality studies, research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a diverse range of proactive policing strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Telep & Weisburd, 2016 ; Weisburd and Majmundar, 2018 ; Welsh, 2019 ). In parallel to this work has been a growing body of survey research that has documented the receptivity of police to evidence-based policing (see, e.g., Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Telep, 2017 ; Telep & Lum, 2014 ).

These case studies of EBP innovations from across the world have had a particular focus on bridging the research-practice divide. They demonstrate just how far the movement has advanced in the last three decades. They also provide us with greater insights and, in many cases, research evidence on how to bring about more effective and fair policing through an evidence-based approach. This is no less than a major achievement.

Building on this work and advancing the body of knowledge that we now have calls attention to several key priorities for the years ahead. One priority for global expansion of EBP is moving beyond rich, industrialized countries. Practitioner and researcher outreach with resources at-hand, on-site, and university/college training, and building capacity with regional partners will go a long way to making this happen. The Cambridge Police Executive Programme may provide a framework for how these objectives can be accomplished on a large scale, even fostering the ability to achieve population-level impacts.

Another priority is police-led and researcher-supported innovations, with a clear focus on sustainable change. This calls for moving beyond one-off, short-term projects, and in some cases attending to the underlying causes of crime rather than its symptoms alone. EBP could be a leader on this front.

A key priority remains the need for an unrelenting focus on evaluation of all dimensions of policing. As shown in Piza and Welsh ( 2022 ), almost every element of policing is testable. Creativity and ingenuity, along with an unwavering commitment to do no harm, are the engines driving EBP innovations. These qualities also need to be harnessed for experimentation. With a rich and deep supply of police practitioners and researchers who exhibit these qualities, we think EBP is up to the challenge.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the journal editor, Lawrence Sherman, for insightful revisions to an earlier version of this article.

Biographies

is Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice and Director of Crime Analysis Initiatives at Northeastern University. Prior to entering academia, he was the GIS Specialist of the Newark, NJ Police Department, responsible for the agency’s crime analysis and program evaluation activities. Dr. Piza’s research focuses on the spatial analysis of crime, crime control technology, and the integration of academic research and police practice.

Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Director of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, and, starting July 1, 2022, the Visiting Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. His research focuses on the prevention of delinquency, crime, and violence and evidence-based social policy. He is the author or editor of 12 books, including, with Steven Zane and Daniel Mears, The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Crime and Justice Policy (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ. Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 1995; 3 :5–26. doi: 10.1007/BF02242925. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cowan D, Strang H, Sherman LW, Munoz SV. Reducing repeat offending through less prosecution in Victoria, Australia: Opportunities for increased diversion of offenders. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing. 2019; 3 :109–117. doi: 10.1007/s41887-019-00040-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodge KA. Annual research review: Universal and targeted strategies for assigning interventions to achieve population impact. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2020; 61 :255–267. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13141. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas S, Braga AA. Non-traditional research partnerships to aid the adoption of evidence-based policing. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 178–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Firestein S. Failure: Why science is so successful. Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerell M. The benefits and challenges of embedding criminologists in crime analysis units: An example from Sweden. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 166–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gimenez-Santana A, Caplan JM, Kennedy LW. Data-informed community engagement: The Newark public safety collaborative. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 191–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Green MC, Bates L. State-wide evidence-based policing: The example of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 273–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haberman CP, Stiver WH. The Dayton Foot Patrol Program: An evaluation of hot spots foot patrols in a central business district. Police Quarterly. 2019; 22 :247–277. doi: 10.1177/1098611118813531. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huey L, Ferguson L. Building empowerment: The Canadian approach to evidence-based policing. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 122–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huey L, Mitchell RJ. An introduction. In: Mitchell RJ, Huey L, editors. Evidence based policing. An introduction. Policy Press; 2019. pp. 3–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SD, Tilley N, Bowers KJ. Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2015; 11 :459–473. doi: 10.1007/s11292-015-9238-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• La Vigne NG. Fits and starts: Criminology’s influence on policing policy and practice. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 53–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lum CM, Koper CS. Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lum CM, Koper CS. Translating and institutionalizing evidence-based policing: The Matrix Demonstration Projects. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 225–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lum CM, Koper CS, Telep CW. The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2011; 7 :3–26. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9108-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Martin P, Newman M, Cowan D, Williams S. Evidence-based policing in Australia and New Zealand: Empowering police to drive the reform agenda. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 136–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Millenson ML. Docs and cops: Origins and ongoing challenges of evidence-based policing. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing. 2021; 5 :146–155. doi: 10.1007/s41887-021-00069-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mock L. Action research for crime control and prevention. In: Klofas J, Hipple NK, McGarrel E, editors. The new criminal justice: American communities and the changing world of crime control. Routledge; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neusteter SR, Magnus C. CompStat 360: CompStat beyond the numbers. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 240–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyroud P. Globalising evidence-based policing: Case studies of community policing, reform, and diversion. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 23–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science. 1994; 5 (1):14–37. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien B, Evans M. Transitioning into an evidence-based police service: The New Zealand experience. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 255–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersilia J. Influencing public policy: An embedded criminologist reflects on California prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2008; 4 :335–356. doi: 10.1007/s11292-008-9060-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piza EL, Caplan JM, Kennedy LW. Is the punishment more certain? An analysis of CCTV detections and enforcement. Justice Quarterly. 2014; 31 :1015–1043. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.723034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piza EL, Caplan JM, Kennedy LW, Gilchrist AM. The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2015; 11 :43–69. doi: 10.1007/s11292-014-9211-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piza EL, Szkola J, Blount-Hill K-L. How can embedded criminologists, police pracademics, and crime analysts help increase police-led program evaluations? A survey of authors cited in the evidence-based policing matrix. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 2021; 15 :1217–1231. doi: 10.1093/police/paaa019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piza EL, Chu SP, Welsh BC. Surveillance, action research, and community technology oversight boards: A proposed model for police technology research. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 206–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner PL. The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting & Finance. 2009; 29 :12–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5850.2009.00921.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prince H, Potts J, Mitchell RJ. Creating a social network of change agents: The American Society of Evidence-Based Policing. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 111–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratcliffe JH. Reducing crime: A companion for police leaders. Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratcliffe JH. Developing evidence-based crime reduction skills in mid-level command staff. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rojek J, Alpert G, Smith H. The utilization of research by the police. Police Practice and Research. 2012; 13 :329–341. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2012.671599. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW. Police and crime control. In: Tonry M, editor. The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice. Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 509–537. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW. The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 2013; 42 :377–451. doi: 10.1086/670819. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW. A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review. 2015; 25 :11–29. doi: 10.1177/1057567715574372. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW. The Cambridge Police Executive Programme: A global reach for pracademics. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 295–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidebottom A, Tilley N. EMMIE and the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction: Progress, challenges, and future directions for evidence-based policing and crime reduction in the United Kingdom. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 73–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith R. From practitioner to policy maker: Developing influence and expertise to deliver police reform. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 95–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Telep CW. Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency. 2017; 63 :976–999. doi: 10.1177/0011128716642253. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Telep CW, Bottema AJ. Adopt evidence-based policing. In: Katz CM, Maguire ER, editors. Transforming the police: Thirteen key reforms. Waveland Press; 2020. pp. 9–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Telep CW, Lum C. The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly. 2014; 17 :359–385. doi: 10.1177/1098611114548099. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Telep CW, Weisburd D. Policing. In: Weisburd D, Farrington DP, Gill CE, editors. What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews. Springer; 2016. pp. 137–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todak N, McLean K, Nix J, Haberman CP. The LEADS Academics Program: Building sustainable police-research partnerships in pursuit of evidence-based policing. In: Piza EL, Welsh BC, editors. The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide. Routledge; 2022. pp. 153–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities . National Academies Press.
• Welsh BC. Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In: Weisburd D, Braga AA, editors. Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives. 2. Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 439–456. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis JJ, Mastrofski SD. Improving policing by integrating craft and science: What can patrol officers teach us about good police work? Policing and Society. 2018; 28 :27–44. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2015.1135921. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Evidence-Based Policing Is Here to Stay: Innovative Research, Meaningful Practice, and Global Reach

• Scientific Communication
• Published: 24 May 2022
• Volume 6 , pages 42–53, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Eric L. Piza 1 &
• Brandon C. Welsh 1  

6630 Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Research Question

In the context of important advances as well as global reach, what more is needed for evidence-based policing to bridge the divide between academic research and police practice?

We draw on 18 case studies reported in The Globalization of Evidence-Based Policing: Innovations in Bridging the Research-Practice Divide (Piza and Welsh, 2022). These accounts of innovations provide a range of qualitative evidence on the integration of scientific research in contemporary policing.

The case studies describe some plausible causal links in four key processes: (a) transferring scientific knowledge to the practice community, (b) empowering officers to conduct police-led science, (c) aligning the work of researchers and practitioners, and (d) incorporating evidence-based policing in daily police functions.

Conclusions

While there is much work to do to achieve population-level impacts, many innovative efforts at bridging the research-practice divide in policing are becoming embedded enough to make that happen.

Similar content being viewed by others

Doing Research on, for and with Police in Canada and Switzerland: Practical and Methodological Insights

Owning Police Reform: The Path Forward for Practitioners and Researchers

The Contribution of the “Super Evidence Cop”; Key Role of Police Leaders in Advancing Evidence-Based Policing

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The title of this article is neither hyperbole nor wishful thinking on our part. After almost three decades of thinking, writing, research, and practice, the idea of EBP is very much a reality. For sure, there is much work to do: overcoming institutional resistance, bridging the research-practice divide, and furnishing police leaders and practitioners with the tools necessary to adopt an evidence-based approach in their day-to-day operations. In all these tasks, the key challenge, as Millenson ( 2021 ) astutely observes, remains whether EBP can make a real, lasting difference for citizens as well as the police institution.

We think EBP is on the road to making such a difference. It is certainly not happening at the pace that many would like, and there have been setbacks and failures along the way (see Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Millenson, 2021 ). Like other disciplines or professions purporting to embrace the evidence-based paradigm, failure is to be expected. Just as accepting the principle that failure is at the core of advancing science (Firestein, 2016 ), it is what is done with these failures that is crucial to advancement of knowledge. As a pioneering historian of evidence-based medicine, Millenson ( 2021 ) is still not convinced that either medical doctors or police officers have sufficiently embraced this view of failure as indispensable to success: to “learn from our errors and misadventures” (p. 148). At least in some circumstances, however, we think otherwise. The present article profiles some innovations in helping to make this happen.

Demonstrating that EBP is making a difference for citizens and law enforcement is going to take some time, inasmuch as the goal is to transform policing into a “totally evidenced” profession (Sherman, 2015 ) to achieve “population-level” impacts (Dodge, 2020 ) across a majority of police agencies or officers. Part of getting there involves overcoming the divide that exists between academic research and police practice (or between scholars and police practitioners). That divide is the main focus of the article. Aiding this effort is an emerging globalization or global reach of EBP. Again, there is work to do on this front, especially in countries in transition and developing countries. The good news is that no longer is the real-world practice of EBP limited to a handful of developed countries.

The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence for that claim from the main findings of a new book on the subject: The Globalization of Evidence-Based Policing: Innovations in Bridging the Research-Practice Divide (Piza and Welsh, 2022 ). The article is organized around four themes that are central to advancing EBP: (a) transferring scientific knowledge to the practice community, (b) empowering officers to conduct police-led science, (c) aligning the work of researchers and practitioners, and (d) incorporating EBP in daily police functions. The article ends with some concluding remarks and directions for the future.

Transferring Scientific Knowledge to the Practice Community

Evidence-based policing is an active process requiring reciprocity between research and practice for maximum benefits to be achieved (Huey & Mitchell, 2019 ). The generation of scientific knowledge by academic researchers must be consulted by police practitioners in order for EBP to realize its full potential. Unfortunately, EBP remains a foreign concept to millions of police officers and leaders around the world (Sherman, 2015 ). While higher-ranking officers exhibit more knowledge of EBP than lower-ranking officers, they tend to define it in a way that is different from the intended meaning (Telep & Bottema, 2020 ).

Key to navigating such impediments is the design of research projects that stand to directly benefit police agencies. This process could be further assisted by involving police practitioners directly in the interpretation of findings and discussion of their implications for policy and practice. In our book, Neyroud ( 2022 ) connects such active research processes to Rogers’ ( 2003 ) diffusion of innovation theory, by which the acquisition of knowledge leads an institution to be persuaded to adopt a given innovation. Neyroud demonstrates this process through case studies on police-led diversion models, the global implementation of community policing, and the use of EBP to support police reform in India. Neyroud was personally involved in each case as both a police professional and academic, providing insight into the institutional processes driving the diffusion of policing innovations. Key across his case studies is the increased engagement of police personnel with research evidence, largely made possible by such developments as the investment in and dissemination of systematic reviews, increased willingness on the part of local governments to fund primary research, and technical assistance in program implementation offered by international bodies like the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.

A key impediment to the wide-scale adoption of EBP pertains to lack of training opportunities in police departments. Despite education levels of police leaders substantially increasing since the 1970s, less progress has been made in the application of scientific knowledge to practice (Sherman, 2013 ). Furthermore, education and training have typically focused on police leaders rather than mid-managers who directly oversee daily operations (Ratcliffe, 2019 ). This creates a situation where police have access to evidence on “what works,” but are given little capacity to implement such strategies in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of success (Johnson et al., 2015 ).

Ratcliffe’s ( 2022 ) evidence discusses the development and delivery of an EBP training program for mid-level command staff. As argued by Ratcliffe, while police agencies often view tactical operations as hard skills requiring constant training, setting crime reduction strategy and policy is often considered a skill one can learn “on the job.” Ratcliffe’s police commander crime reduction course enhances the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model popularized by problem-oriented policing through specific practices and checklists to introduce more structured working practices into command work function. Building on SARA, the PANDA model has been developed: Problem scan, Analyze problem, Nominate strategy, Deploy strategy, and Assess outcomes. PANDA retains aspects of SARA while adding more specificity to the articulation and deployment of a response. Each stage of the PANDA model has an accompanying checklist to foster a structured approach to decision-making to enhance the existing skillset of police leaders.

La Vigne’s ( 2022 ) evidence provides a retrospective accounting of efforts to translate research findings for lay audiences to inform policing policy and practice. Her interviews with American policymakers and criminal justice influencers show that in the latter half of the twentieth century, criminology had a tenuous (at best) tie to policy relevance and media engagement. The interviews demonstrate how policing’s advancement towards more policy relevance and media impact developed within a complex ecosystem of actors in the criminal justice and policing space. That ecosystem, in the USA, consists of academic researchers and research centers within universities; scholars housed in non-academic research institutes; the academy, as represented primarily by the two most prominent criminology associations; the federal government; and philanthropy.

Dissemination represents a key aspect of police research translation (Lum & Koper, 2017 ). The College of Policing (UK), founded in 2012, is one example, which communicates research evidence through its What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR). Sidebottom and Tilley ( 2022 ) discuss the work of the WWCCR and its Crime Reduction Toolkit ( https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit ), which is used as its primary research translation tool—measuring the quality of systematic reviews of crime and justice interventions. For example, the authors discuss how well the programmatic needs of policymakers are addressed by systematic reviews on a range of crime prevention approaches (e.g., alley gating, CCTV, hot spots policing, focused deterrence), diversion (e.g., drug substitutes, mentoring), and reoffending programs (e.g., domestic abuse sanctions, electronic tagging). The authors report that most systematic reviews provide rich data on program effects, but provide less information on monetary costs and benefits, mechanisms and moderators, and implementation challenges.

Empowering Officers to Conduct Police-Led Science

Piza et al. ( 2021 ) argue that the institutionalization of evidence-based policing requires understanding how scientific knowledge is produced. Knowledge internalization, where academics draw from generalizable knowledge to inform the narrower, specific actions of practitioners (Nonaka, 1994 ), has been the predominant model in policing since the professional era starting in the mid-1900s (Sherman, 2011 : 531). There are a number of inherent limitations in such an approach, including the typically slow-moving process of research not fitting an expedited timeline needed to inform policy and practice, and academic researchers lacking the skill to help with specific problems facing practitioners. For such reasons, Sherman ( 2011 ) proposes a move towards a model of police-led science, which puts police officers at the forefront of generating evidence, with agencies empowering their officers to develop and test research questions.

Four chapters in Piza and Welsh ( 2022 ) focus on efforts to foster police-led science. Smith ( 2022 ), for example, recounts his lived experience of higher education as a mechanism for securing greater influence and autonomy as a senior police officer of the Metropolitan Police Service of London. Smith concludes that many problems of the police profession are not due to a lack of credible scientific evidence, but rather to an organizational behavior that is unable to readily apply such evidence in practice. Smith demonstrates how police reform requires leaders highly skilled in change management who can develop critical insights on how their organization functions—and simultaneously secure new knowledge from academic partners who seek to shape policing practice. Smith argues that such a context transforms EBP from something that is “done to the police service” by those on the outside looking in, to something driven by the police service itself.

The empowerment necessary to support police-led science can also be fostered by professional societies, two of which are profiled in the book. Prince et al. ( 2022 ) recount the formation of the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing (ASEBP) and its organizational activities. Huey and Ferguson ( 2022 ) do likewise for the Canadian Society of Evidence-Based Policing (Can-SEBP). Both organizations were developed out of unique needs in the two countries, and they now form part of a much larger global network of EBP societies.

Prince et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate the evolution of ASEBP as a series of “starts and stops” that allowed the organization to organically find its purpose. Over its first 6 years, ASEBP has grown from a group of 10 to over 350 members, offering an annual research conference that attracts attendees from around the world and from which applied research projects often emerge. Huey and Ferguson ( 2022 ) discuss how Can-SEBP resulted from a distinct need of the Canadian government to better foster evidence-based approaches to public safety, with the objective of rebuilding Canada’s capacity for applied policing research.

Perhaps the most promising direction for developing police-led science is by enabling police officers to directly generate their own scientific research evidence through designing and implementing field experiments. Doing so requires a departure from standard procedure, as policing primarily relies on police academies to provide initial and ongoing training for officers in legal frameworks guiding the policing profession and the proper use of law enforcement tactics (Ratcliffe, 2022 ). Mazerolle et al. ( 2022 ), however, describe supplemental EBP workshops developed and offered by the University of Queensland for the purpose of empowering police to drive for themselves the reform agenda around EBP.

These EBP workshops are intentionally designed to promote meaningful academic-practitioner partnerships for research production. The police participants come to a workshop with a specific problem facing their agency and draw upon their operational knowledge and experience to design an innovative response. The academic facilitator supplies research methodology to develop the idea and generate evidence of effectiveness. Police then use this information to lead field experiments. The field experiments emerging from the EBP workshops have explored a range of contemporary policing issues, including the capacity of third-party policing to disrupt the sale of illicit drugs from hotel rooms, the effect of procedural justice principles on routine encounters with citizens, and the long-term effect of diversion on repeat offending (see also Cowan et al., 2019 ).

Aligning the Work of Researchers and Practitioners

Researcher-practitioner partnerships can provide an environment that fosters evidence-based policing, especially when both parties contribute to problem identification, strategy development, and strategy implementation (Mock, 2010 ). A partnership environment helps both sides to navigate the competing interests and incentive structures of academia and policing. Todak et al. ( 2022 ), for example, draw upon their experiences with the inaugural cohort of the National Institute of Justice’s Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) Academics program. This program has contributed to the development of many productive research collaborations between practitioners and academics, including the design, deployment, and evaluation of the effect of foot patrols in Dayton, Ohio (Haberman & Stiver, 2019 ).

Action-research partnerships can be improved through the involvement of embedded criminologists who take an active role in the day-to-day routine of police agencies. The presence of an in-house academic can provide police agencies with uninhibited access to rigorously trained, scientifically objective scholars in support of agency operations. The integration of embedded criminologists in policing follows the successful application of the model in corrections (Petersilia, 2008 ), and has thus far involved academics working in close concert with command-staff police personnel. Gerell ( 2022 ) provides an account of his work with the intelligence unit of Sweden’s National Police, which expanded the embedded criminologist model into the field of crime analysis.

The potential of embedded criminologists and police “pracademics” to accelerate these partnerships is taken up by Douglas and Braga ( 2022 ) who describe their role in promoting the adoption of EBP within police agencies. In the past, academic partnerships with police departments have largely been project-based enterprises that rarely continued beyond the project’s end (Rojek et al., 2012 ). Embedded criminologists help create a more lasting effect by their continuing presence, while pracademics — police officers who have received academic training in research and evaluation — can act as knowledge “brokers” in their organizations, who can align perspectives across multiple constituencies (Posner, 2009 : 16). These capacities may make pracademics the most likely mechanism for successfully integrating the “craft” of police work and the “hard science” of empirical research (Willis & Mastrofski, 2018 ).

Gimenez-Santana et al. ( 2022 ) present their work with a Newark public safety initiative developed at the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice. The project uses a model of data-informed community engagement (DICE) to assist a working group of community partner organizations in identifying crime problems and developing evidence-based solutions. DICE involves the public presentation and discussions of data analysis findings at community meetings attended by all stakeholder agencies. Risk-Terrain Modeling (RTM) for spatial analysis of crime is at the heart of DICE by identifying the risks that come from the physical environment’s crime attractors and generators (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995 ), and models how they co-locate to create unique behavior settings for crime.

Piza et al. ( 2022 ) present a proposal for police technology research to be guided by Community Technology Oversight Boards (CTOBs), to better inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of police technology interventions, emphasizing active collaboration and continuous feedback. The authors propose CTOBs following a critical assessment of Piza’s experience in analyzing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in Newark, New Jersey (see, e.g., Piza et al., 2014 , 2015 ). The purpose of CTOBs is to formalize community-focused partnerships to inform police surveillance technologies. They should comprise practitioners, researchers, and community stakeholders to encourage the adoption of sound science and efficient, effective, and equitable technology interventions. For best results, these stakeholders would work collaboratively to identify and analyze problems, consider and select specific technology for deployment, conduct in-depth assessments to understand the potential community impact, and conduct rigorous process and outcome evaluations to determine whether technology interventions should be adjusted. While this model can be readily applied to contemporary police technologies, such as CCTV, it holds particular promise for emerging surveillance technologies such as facial recognition and aerial drones. Given the rapidly expanding popularity of these tools, as well as their potentially enhanced intrusiveness and the general controversy surrounding their use, a CTOB provides a platform for consultation and negotiation.

Incorporating Evidence-Based Policing in Daily Police Functions

A wide range of innovative approaches have been carried out in recent years as part of a growing effort to embed evidence-based policing principles in daily police functions. Our book (Piza and Welsh, 2022 ) profiles five such approaches. In the early 2010s, Lum et al. ( 2011 ) launched an innovative and user-friendly tool known as the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix. Viewed at the time as the “next phase of evidence-based policing,” the Matrix was designed to aid police agencies in using scientific evidence in a strategic manner. It did so by “developing generalizations or principles on the nature of effective police strategies and translating the field of police evaluation research into digestible forms that can be used to alter police tactics, strategies, accountability systems, and training” (Lum et al., 2011 : 3). The first test of the Matrix reaffirmed some of the scientific evidence on police effectiveness in reducing crime. It continues to serve as a key resource for updating the evidence base in a timely manner and tailoring the evidence to the needs of police agencies.

In the next phase of the Matrix, known as the Matrix Demonstration Projects (MDP), Lum and Koper ( 2022 ) illustrate how the MDP facilitates three activities that are essential to achieving EBP: translation, receptivity, and institutionalization. These core activities come with the added benefit of contributing to the development of high-quality research evidence. The authors discuss in detail the creation of tools to support the application of EBP in the field (e.g., the Evidence-Based Policing Playbook) and the communication of EBP principles to police management and leadership.

Another innovative approach is the CompStat360 platform, which harnesses the benefits of both the traditional CompStat model and community policing perspectives. Neusteter and Magnus ( 2022 ) describe how CompStat360 was piloted and developed through a practitioner-researcher partnership in Tucson, Arizona. The platform consists of planned connections or feedback loops among three overlapping dimensions: (a) prevention, intervention, and clearance of crimes; (b) maximization of organizational effectiveness; and (c) integration of community support and involvement. Key lessons from CompsStat360 include these:

not all projects required crime analysis resources or the use of a “rigid” problem-solving structure;

the importance of targeting micro-problem areas or places (e.g., a motel generating a high volume of 911 calls); and

police commanders going beyond “siloed” problem solving to establishing ad hoc multidisciplinary teams.

As an example of the global reach of EBP, O’Brien and Evans ( 2022 ) describe the development, early initiatives, and current scope of the New Zealand Police Service’s Evidence-Based Policing Centre (EBPC). Established in early 2019, the Centre is dedicated to institutionalizing EBP in day-to-day operations of the police service. The EBPC strategy is structured around four key functions: (a) data science; (b) performance, research, and insights; (c) delivery and improvements; and (d) implementation and evaluation. Teams assigned to each of these functions combine police practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders to carry out these functions. At the time of writing, there were more than 50 active projects in these four functions, with another 100 projects in the scoping and development phase. In recognition of the many challenges of embedding EBP in operational policing and sustaining it over time, the Centre’s efforts are guided by a number of “success criteria.” These include meeting specific targets, including making New Zealand the safest country in the world, fostering a culture of learning and innovation, and forming strong partnerships with others who aspire to similar goals.

Turning back to the USA, Green and Bates ( 2022 ) profile a state-wide initiative (in the state of New York) that relies on EBP practices to reduce urban gun violence at the local level. Facilitated by technical support, training, and assistance in data collection from the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the initiative leverages a network of crime analysis centers (as a way to bolster the analytical capacity of local police agencies), an innovative street outreach program, a tested gun violence prevention program, and efforts to improve clearance rates for non-fatal gun crimes. By embracing a more active role than most traditional state grant-awarding systems, DCJS has also been in a position to help agencies respond to changing conditions on the ground, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, and address implementation challenges.

The final innovative approach profiled in the book for embedding EBP principles in daily police functions concerns the Cambridge Police Executive Programme (CPEP). Building on a program for certifying police leaders launched at Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology in 1996 and directed by Lawrence Sherman with an EBP curriculum since 2008, the Programme offers a part-time master’s degree to mid-career police officers. Its aim is training “pracademics” in policing both to do research and lead its application. Its diverse student body enables its effort to institutionalize EBP across the world.

Two main perspectives guide this Programme’s approach to EBP: (a) EBP should serve as a “general framework for making decisions” and (b) EBP is a “strategy for organizing police activities around a holistic mission of reducing total harm from crimes” (Sherman, 2022 : 301). Undergirding these views has been the mission of getting research into practice, culminating in scores of applied research projects by the student pracademics, in collaboration with their faculty thesis advisors, and leading to scientific discoveries and changes in police practices. The Cambridge Programme shows how academic training can directly, and in short order, impact police agency operations. It also serves as a proof of concept for replication in other top-tier universities, as a way to get more pracademics in policing and help institutionalize EBP.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Our conclusion from these 18 case studies is that the evidence-based policing movement has expanded rapidly across the world. It has gained a foothold in a large number of police agencies. It has become part of the institutional landscape of policing, through international, regional, and country-level professional societies dedicated to its advancement.

At the same time, and undergirding some of the movement’s success, there has been a growing body of scientific research. From experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations (many published in this journal) to Campbell Collaboration reviews of the highest quality studies, research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a diverse range of proactive policing strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Telep & Weisburd, 2016 ; Weisburd and Majmundar, 2018 ; Welsh, 2019 ). In parallel to this work has been a growing body of survey research that has documented the receptivity of police to evidence-based policing (see, e.g., Lum & Koper, 2017 ; Telep, 2017 ; Telep & Lum, 2014 ).

These case studies of EBP innovations from across the world have had a particular focus on bridging the research-practice divide. They demonstrate just how far the movement has advanced in the last three decades. They also provide us with greater insights and, in many cases, research evidence on how to bring about more effective and fair policing through an evidence-based approach. This is no less than a major achievement.

Building on this work and advancing the body of knowledge that we now have calls attention to several key priorities for the years ahead. One priority for global expansion of EBP is moving beyond rich, industrialized countries. Practitioner and researcher outreach with resources at-hand, on-site, and university/college training, and building capacity with regional partners will go a long way to making this happen. The Cambridge Police Executive Programme may provide a framework for how these objectives can be accomplished on a large scale, even fostering the ability to achieve population-level impacts.

Another priority is police-led and researcher-supported innovations, with a clear focus on sustainable change. This calls for moving beyond one-off, short-term projects, and in some cases attending to the underlying causes of crime rather than its symptoms alone. EBP could be a leader on this front.

A key priority remains the need for an unrelenting focus on evaluation of all dimensions of policing. As shown in Piza and Welsh ( 2022 ), almost every element of policing is testable. Creativity and ingenuity, along with an unwavering commitment to do no harm, are the engines driving EBP innovations. These qualities also need to be harnessed for experimentation. With a rich and deep supply of police practitioners and researchers who exhibit these qualities, we think EBP is up to the challenge.

Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3 , 5–26.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cowan, D., Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., & Munoz, S. V. (2019). Reducing repeat offending through less prosecution in Victoria, Australia: Opportunities for increased diversion of offenders. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 3 , 109–117.

Dodge, K. A. (2020). Annual research review: Universal and targeted strategies for assigning interventions to achieve population impact. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61 , 255–267.

Douglas, S., & Braga, A. A. (2022). Non-traditional research partnerships to aid the adoption of evidence-based policing. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 178–190). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Firestein, S. (2016). Failure: Why science is so successful . Oxford University Press.

Gerell, M. (2022). The benefits and challenges of embedding criminologists in crime analysis units: An example from Sweden. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 166–177). Routledge.

Gimenez-Santana, A., Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2022). Data-informed community engagement: The Newark public safety collaborative. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 191–205). Routledge.

Green, M. C., & Bates, L. (2022). State-wide evidence-based policing: The example of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 273–294). Routledge.

Haberman, C. P., & Stiver, W. H. (2019). The Dayton Foot Patrol Program: An evaluation of hot spots foot patrols in a central business district. Police Quarterly, 22 , 247–277.

Huey, L., & Ferguson, L. (2022). Building empowerment: The Canadian approach to evidence-based policing. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 122–135). Routledge.

Huey, L., & Mitchell, R. J. (2019). An introduction. In R. J. Mitchell & L. Huey (Eds.), Evidence based policing. An introduction (pp. 3–14). Policy Press.

Johnson, S. D., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. J. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 , 459–473.

La Vigne, N. G. (2022). Fits and starts: Criminology’s influence on policing policy and practice. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 53–72). Routledge.

Lum, C. M., & Koper, C. S. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice . Oxford University Press.

Lum, C. M., & Koper, C. S. (2022). Translating and institutionalizing evidence-based policing: The Matrix Demonstration Projects. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 225–239). Routledge.

Lum, C. M., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 , 3–26.

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Martin, P., Newman, M., Cowan, D., & Williams, S. (2022). Evidence-based policing in Australia and New Zealand: Empowering police to drive the reform agenda. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 136–149). Routledge.

Millenson, M. L. (2021). Docs and cops: Origins and ongoing challenges of evidence-based policing. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 5 , 146–155.

Mock, L. (2010). Action research for crime control and prevention. In J. Klofas, N. K. Hipple, & E. McGarrel (Eds.), The new criminal justice: American communities and the changing world of crime control. Routledge.

Neusteter, S. R., & Magnus, C. (2022). CompStat 360: CompStat beyond the numbers. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 240–254). Routledge.

Neyroud, P. (2022). Globalising evidence-based policing: Case studies of community policing, reform, and diversion. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 23–38). Routledge.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14–37.

O’Brien, B., & Evans, M. (2022). Transitioning into an evidence-based police service: The New Zealand experience. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 255–272). Routledge.

Petersilia, J. (2008). Influencing public policy: An embedded criminologist reflects on California prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4 , 335–356.

Piza, E. L., & Welsh, B. C. (Eds.). (2022). The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide . Routledge.

Piza, E. L., Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2014). Is the punishment more certain? An analysis of CCTV detections and enforcement. Justice Quarterly, 31 , 1015–1043.

Piza, E. L., Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Gilchrist, A. M. (2015). The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 , 43–69.

Piza, E. L., Szkola, J., & Blount-Hill, K.-L. (2021). How can embedded criminologists, police pracademics, and crime analysts help increase police-led program evaluations? A survey of authors cited in the evidence-based policing matrix. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15 , 1217–1231.

Piza, E. L., Chu, S. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2022). Surveillance, action research, and community technology oversight boards: A proposed model for police technology research. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 206–222). Routledge.

Posner, P. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting & Finance, 29 , 12–26.

Prince, H., Potts, J., & Mitchell, R. J. (2022). Creating a social network of change agents: The American Society of Evidence-Based Policing. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 111–121). Routledge.

Ratcliffe, J. H. (2019). Reducing crime: A companion for police leaders . Routledge.

Ratcliffe, J. H. (2022). Developing evidence-based crime reduction skills in mid-level command staff. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 39–52). Routledge.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations . Simon and Schuster.

Rojek, J., Alpert, G., & Smith, H. (2012). The utilization of research by the police. Police Practice and Research, 13 , 329–341.

Sherman, L. W. (2011). Police and crime control. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice (pp. 509–537). Oxford University Press.

Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 42 , 377–451.

Sherman, L. W. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25 , 11–29.

Sherman, L. W. (2022). The Cambridge Police Executive Programme: A global reach for pracademics. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 295–317). Routledge.

Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2022). EMMIE and the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction: Progress, challenges, and future directions for evidence-based policing and crime reduction in the United Kingdom. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 73–91). Routledge.

Smith, R. (2022). From practitioner to policy maker: Developing influence and expertise to deliver police reform. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 95–110). Routledge.

Telep, C. W. (2017). Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 63 , 976–999.

Telep, C. W., & Bottema, A. J. (2020). Adopt evidence-based policing. In C. M. Katz & E. R. Maguire (Eds.), Transforming the police: Thirteen key reforms (pp. 9–25). Waveland Press.

Telep, C. W., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17 , 359–385.

Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Policing. In D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington, & C. E. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 137–168). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Todak, N., McLean, K., Nix, J., & Haberman, C. P. (2022). The LEADS Academics Program: Building sustainable police-research partnerships in pursuit of evidence-based policing. In E. L. Piza & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The globalization of evidence-based policing: Innovations in bridging the research-practice divide (pp. 153–165). Routledge.

Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities . National Academies Press.

Welsh, B. C. (2019). Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 439–456). Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. J., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2018). Improving policing by integrating craft and science: What can patrol officers teach us about good police work? Policing and Society, 28 , 27–44.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the journal editor, Lawrence Sherman, for insightful revisions to an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

Eric L. Piza & Brandon C. Welsh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric L. Piza .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Piza, E., Welsh, B. Evidence-Based Policing Is Here to Stay: Innovative Research, Meaningful Practice, and Global Reach. Camb J Evid Based Polic 6 , 42–53 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-022-00074-x

Download citation

Published : 24 May 2022

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-022-00074-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based policing
• Research-practice divide
• Globalization
• Public policy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Future of Evidence-Based Policing
• > A Review of Systematic Reviews in Policing

Book contents

• The Future of Evidence-Based Policing
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• 1 The Future of Evidence-Based Policing
• Part I Taking Stock of Evidence-Based Policing
• Part II The Evidence for Evidence-Based Policing
• 5 A Review of Systematic Reviews in Policing
• 6 What Do We Know about Proactive Policing’s Effects on Crime and Community?
• 7 Rethinking the Role of the Community in Proactive Policing
• Part III Innovations in Tools of Evaluation and Assessment
• Part IV Challenges to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Policing
• Part V The Practitioner’s Perspective
• 17 Conclusions

5 - A Review of Systematic Reviews in Policing

from Part II - The Evidence for Evidence-Based Policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

Systematic reviews in policing have become an increasingly common way for researchers to synthesize the state of research on programs, practices, and policies. Reviews utilize comprehensive and transparent search strategies to identify and summarize the evidence base for a particular topic, providing rigorous assessments of the state of scientific knowledge about policing strategies needed for evidence-based policing. This chapter summarizes findings and conclusions from systematic reviews on policing, building on an earlier paper that included 17 policing reviews completed between 2004 and 2015. In the current chapter, we identify updates to five of these reviews, and new reviews on 13 policing topics. Our “review of reviews” on 30 policing topics suggests a growth in primary research in policing, and in particular an increase in reviews on non-crime control topics. But we also suggest existing reviews provide insufficient “how to” guidance for implementing evidence-based strategies. We argue in concluding that scholars have succeeded in providing a “first generation” of studies that tell us whether general policing approaches are effective, but a much larger evidence based is needed for a “second generation” of systematic reviews that would provide specific guidance about choosing and implementing evidence-based practices in the field.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• A Review of Systematic Reviews in Policing
• By Cody W. Telep , David Weisburd
• Edited by David Weisburd , Hebrew University of Jerusalem and George Mason University, Virginia , Tal Jonathan-Zamir , Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Gali Perry , Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Badi Hasisi , Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Book: The Future of Evidence-Based Policing
• Online publication: 01 June 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108885737.007

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Author Guidelines
• Why Publish
• Submission Site
• Reviewer guidelines
• Open Access
• About Policing
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Taking an Evidence-Based Approach to Evidence-Based Policing Research

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Laura Boulton, Rebecca Phythian, Stuart Kirby, Ian Dawson, Taking an Evidence-Based Approach to Evidence-Based Policing Research, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2021, Pages 1290–1305, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa057

• Permissions Icon Permissions

A growing body of international evidence reflects the increasing recognition of evidence-based policing (EBP) and the co-production of research, yet the extent of which such research is being implemented remains unclear. This study seeks to explore the efficacy of EBP in relation to practical implementation issues and assess the impact research is having on practice, both within and external to a specific Constabulary. Twenty-nine research studies, conducted in association with the Constabulary, were examined using a mixed-method approach. Of the total projects, 52% of projects were found to have generated a change to practice or policy. The key features of research that were associated with impact included: (i) mixed-method data collection, (ii) transferability, and (iii) increased dissemination that engaged practitioner and academic audiences. Practically, these findings suggest that EBP research projects can be designed and disseminated in a way that increases the likelihood of implementing the findings to change practice.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1752-4520
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.